Since there isn’t any proof of any sort of significant voter fraud, the legislators in GA, and many other GoP controlled states are either stupid, and wasting their time with that legislation (fixing something not broken), or there is an alternative motive.
Outstanding.
DAMN good post, @unreal24278.
The above should be emphasized…but also taken into context of your entire post.
1 Like
Ford and Holden no longer build cars in Australia(Holden no longer even sells cars, we still get Fords via import). When that finished a few years ago the rivals buried the hatchets. Back in the Day there were only Ford or Holden owners, a small number had Jap Craps, or some other foreign piece of shit(unless it was a Mercedes).
Twas a fierce rivalry. Once you picked a tribe you could never change. I was always a Holden man, even when my Dad traded the Holden in for a Ford when he got a good deal(which was a fine car too).
A part of the real Australia died when those companies stopped 
It can’t be a desire for fair elections with sensible security measures, can it?
No… there must be sinister motives if you don’t like the idea of no or few barriers to someone showing up to vote in your district.
Can’t be that…
Stupid Republicans! No different than declaring war on police!
A felony crime with time in prison isn’t a significant barrier? It seems as if the punishment is so much larger than the reward that hardly anyone would be silly enough to commit that crime. The data supports this. If this were true:
They could just look at the data and see their concerns are unfounded, and that their and the public’s resources would be better spent on something useful.
In another thread, we delved into what risks you thought were significant. Remember what you came up with? A guy with multiple properties voting in the multiple locations he lives in. Yeah, that rich guy is going to risk prison to get one more vote in.
This.
You’re mis characterizing my argument and dramatically over simplifying it in a misguided effort to draw conservative equivalence to an objectivity terrible policy and nationwide, top down anti police campaign that is already producing objectively terrible human outcomes.
No points for you today.
Policy disagreements over local voting regulations do not have any equivalence to the idea that police ought to be neutered.
Voter ID is firmly with the realm of sane policy, as is everything in the GA bill. There is nothing Jim Crow about it in the least.
The war on cops is an insane war on the fabric of society. Listening to the cries of Republican equivalence sounds the same to me as the people who pointed out the imperfections of Republicans when it was time to line up and take a side on slavery and civil rights.
Whenever the Democrats go back to their racist roots of sowing division, destruction and chaos it becomes a moral imperative to oppose them. MLK led that last great effort that was achieved with Republican support. A few decades of sane policy followed, and now we’re back here with the Democrats returning to their racist and destructive roots.
This is like the people who opposed Lincoln because he vastly expanded executive authority and wartime emergency powers along with being a hypocrite at times so slavery could be ended.
They all look like fools now.
1 Like
Sorry to nitpick, but I’d argue many catering towards the “defund the police narrative” tend to be ignorant as opposed lacking intellect or harbouring antisocial tendencies. I used to believe in the “defund the police” schtick too as it was all over the internet. After looking into crime related statistics within various neighbourhoods, the statistical likelihood of encountering police misconduct within US in comparison to the sheer number of day to day police interactions I changed my mind.
My initial opinion stemmed from being fed a media narrative coupled with my/friends/relatives anecdotally negative interactions with cops in the US. I’m sure what I experienced was out of the norm
@marine77 is swat, I’d wager he’s allocated towards enforcing people who are actually a danger to society receive punishment, not say (Australian example) a 21 year old with a probationary license blowing 0.01 at a random DUI checkpoint.
My irritation stems from (in Aus) excessive resources being allocated towards inconsequential crimes. Putting red light cameras at every second fucking atop street and pulling people over for going 1.5mph over the speed limit is, in my opinion an attempt to raise revenue. Cops don’t exist as tools to raise revenue, but some of the shit implemented here is an attempt at doing so. I imagine you’d be fed up too if you had to live with some of the draconian restrictions I have to deal with.
I can’t comment about current police conduct in America. Though from what I’ve read it would GENERALLY appear as if probable cause needs to be identified prior to someone “getting all up in your business”. It’s “innocent until proven guilty”, not “everyone is a potential criminal, do the right thing by constantly adhering to these guidelines that are almost impossible to adhere to and you’ll be alright”. I received my first ever fine/demerit point. Everyone gets fines here… All the time… For just about everything.
Like talking about an election being fraudulent without any substance to back it up?
Ah, yes, civil wars are the worst, pitting father against son…
1 Like
That falls firmly within “profoundly stupid” at this point, when evidence is in hand. The importance of police is such a basic notion that ignorance of their importance is no excuse. That’s like defending the idea of jumping into a bonfire because you’re ignorant of fire’s effects.
You’re not ignorant for jumping into a bonfire, you’re profoundly stupid.
Lol. Still beating that horse, eh?
I’ve written thousands of words explaining my concerns and the facts that inform them.
Somehow this keeps being brought up in this thread.
I don’t intend to compare the impact of the two. That would require quantifying the impacts which I can’t do myself. Certainly there are serious impacts with both, but trying to compare people losing faith in democracy to the impacts of a reduced police force is not something I can do.
Forbidding water being handed out to those waiting in line is sane policy? Giving the legislator power to appoint the chair of the election board is sane policy?
1 Like
OK, and be advised, I’m expecting internet points…
Didn’t Bill Clinton drive in large part the move to heavily fund police units with better equipment, to the extent that liberals complain now that he gave rise to heavy handed treatment of minorities by those “militarized” police, and, didn’t he do this for the same reason that Biden is vilifying police now, to win votes.???
1 Like
That’s also a mis characterization at best, lie at worst.
I’d have to think on that and actually inform myself with facts, given your tendency to mis characterize like you did in the previous sentence.
But keep saying it if it makes you feel better when our cities are in chaos and cops are voting with their feet and their on-the-job choices.
Same stuff on both sides…
Same stuff on both sides.,
Same stuff on both sides…
LOL, what? The bill makes it illegal to hand out water to those waiting to vote. How is that a mischaracterization?
It wasn’t a mischaracterization. It isn’t sane policy is the problem.
1 Like
Lying by omission. If I’m concerned about the thirst of voters waiting in line I can donate all the water to the poll workers to hand out. I can bring my own water.
What you can’t do is give someone something and say Vote for Bob when you do it. That includes food, drink and bags of cash.
Given the ease with which water can be accessed without the aid of campaign operatives, it seems like a minor and sensible change to prevent election bribes at the polls.
Let me know when the first dehydration incident occurs.
Probably. Flip flopping isn’t necessarily a bad thing though. It’s learning from mistakes and revising a policy position. No one gets it right 100% of the time. IMO it’s not much different than the scientific method of hypothesis-test-revise-test…
3 Likes
You couldn’t do that before the bill.
You now can’t legally give someone water waiting in line even without any politics being involved.
I didn’t omit anything. The fact you can donate to a poll worker doesn’t change the truth of what I said. Donating water to a poll worker doesn’t guarantee that voters will get the water either. Bringing your own water doesn’t change anything about what I said either.
Agreed, and I think it was probably an understandable response to some fairly well armed OGs…
Yes you can. If my friend is waiting in line in GA and I bring him water, neither of us go to jail.
Like I said, let me know the suffering toll here. How many deaths and hospitalizations from dehydration do you predict?